View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Innovation How Might We |  Operations Standard Work Analysis |  Operations A3 Problem Solving |  Operations Failure Mode and Effects Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | With a stuck problem carrying many implicit assumptions, the method translates observations into open, workable questions. It sharpens the problem frame without pre-thinking the solution, turning frustration or fuzziness into a search space with clear direction. | When the same task is done differently depending on the person, the method exposes the reliable core. It creates comparability without unnecessarily choking off needed latitude. | For a complex deviation with several people involved, the method bundles problem, analysis, and decision onto one page. It creates a shared working space where causes, countermeasures, and follow-up fit together. | For a process, product, or service with noticeable failure risks, the method assesses possible failure modes in advance. It directs attention to combinations of occurrence, effect, and detectability. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 30–45 min | 1-3 h | 45-90 min | 2-6 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 2-6 | 2-5 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | Standard Work Sheet, Deviation List, Improved Standard, Training Needs | A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis | FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions |
Tagsno overlap | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | LeanProcessQuality | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations | RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause |